Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world's largest contract chip maker, is expected to announce a massive $100 billion investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States over the next three years. This substantial commitment aims to boost domestic chip production and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers, particularly in light of escalating tensions with China and growing concerns about semiconductor supply chain security. The investment includes plans for multiple new factories, potentially creating thousands of jobs.
Broadcom and TSMC are reportedly exploring separate deals with Intel that could break up the struggling chip giant. Broadcom is considering acquiring Intel's networking business, while TSMC is in talks to potentially build a dedicated fabrication plant near Intel's Arizona site. These deals, if they materialize, would represent a significant shift for Intel, signaling a potential move away from its traditional integrated device manufacturing model and allowing it to focus on its core chip-designing business.
HN commenters are skeptical of the WSJ article's premise that Intel would split its manufacturing operations. Several point out that Intel's foundry business is integral to its IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturing) model and selling it off, especially to a competitor like TSMC, would be strategically unsound. Others argue that Intel's manufacturing capabilities, while currently lagging behind TSMC, are still a valuable asset, especially given the current geopolitical climate and the desire for more geographically diverse chip production. Some commenters suggest the rumors might be intentionally leaked by Intel to gauge public and investor reactions, or even to put pressure on governments for more subsidies. The overall sentiment is that a complete split is unlikely, but smaller deals, like selling specific fabs or collaborating on specific technologies, are more plausible.
TSMC is reportedly in talks with Intel to potentially manufacture chips for Intel's GPU division using TSMC's advanced 3nm process. This presents a dilemma for TSMC, as accepting Intel's business would mean allocating valuable 3nm capacity away from existing customers like Apple and Nvidia, potentially impacting their product roadmaps. Further complicating matters is the geopolitical pressure TSMC faces to reduce its reliance on China, with the US CHIPS Act incentivizing domestic production. While taking on Intel's business could strengthen TSMC's US presence and potentially secure government subsidies, it risks alienating key clients and diverting resources from crucial internal development. TSMC must carefully weigh the benefits of this collaboration against the potential disruption to its existing business and long-term strategic goals.
Hacker News commenters discuss the potential TSMC-Intel collaboration with skepticism. Several doubt Intel's ability to successfully utilize TSMC's advanced nodes, citing Intel's past manufacturing struggles and the potential complexity of integrating different process technologies. Others question the strategic logic for both companies, suggesting that such a partnership could create conflicts of interest and potentially compromise TSMC's competitive advantage. Some commenters also point out the geopolitical implications, noting the US government's desire to strengthen domestic chip production and reduce reliance on Taiwan. A few express concerns about the potential impact on TSMC's capacity and the availability of advanced nodes for other clients. Overall, the sentiment leans towards cautious pessimism about the rumored collaboration.
According to Morris Chang, founding chairman of TSMC, Apple CEO Tim Cook expressed skepticism about Intel's foundry ambitions, reportedly stating that Intel "didn't know how to be a foundry." This comment, made during a meeting where Chang was trying to convince Cook to let Intel manufacture Apple chips, highlights the perceived difference in expertise and experience between established foundry giant TSMC and Intel's relatively nascent efforts in the contract chip manufacturing business. Chang ultimately declined Intel's offer, citing their high prices and lack of a true commitment to being a foundry partner.
Hacker News commenters generally agree with the assessment that Intel struggles with the foundry business model. Several point out the inherent conflict of interest in competing with your own customers, a challenge Intel faces. Some highlight Intel's history of prioritizing its own products over foundry customers, leading to delays and capacity issues for those clients. Others suggest that Intel's internal culture and organizational structure aren't conducive to the customer-centric approach required for a successful foundry. A few express skepticism about the veracity of the quote attributed to Tim Cook, while others suggest it's simply a restatement of widely understood industry realities. Some also discuss the broader geopolitical implications of TSMC's dominance and the US government's efforts to bolster domestic chip manufacturing.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has started producing 4-nanometer chips at its Arizona facility. US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced the milestone, stating the chips will be ready for customers in 2025. This marks a significant step for US chip production, bringing advanced semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to American soil. While the Arizona plant initially focused on 5-nanometer chips, this shift to 4-nanometer production signifies an upgrade to a more advanced and efficient process.
Hacker News commenters discuss the geopolitical implications of TSMC's Arizona fab, expressing skepticism about its competitiveness with Taiwanese facilities. Some doubt the US can replicate the supporting infrastructure and skilled workforce that TSMC enjoys in Taiwan, potentially leading to higher costs and lower yields. Others highlight the strategic importance of domestic chip production for the US, even if it's less efficient, to reduce reliance on Taiwan amidst rising tensions with China. Several commenters also question the long-term viability of the project given the rapid pace of semiconductor technology advancement, speculating that the Arizona fab may be obsolete by the time it reaches full production. Finally, some express concern about the environmental impact of chip manufacturing, particularly water usage in Arizona's arid climate.
Summary of Comments ( 679 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243580
HN commenters are skeptical of TSMC's purported $100B investment, questioning whether it will fully materialize and expressing concern over the high cost of US chip fabrication. Several point out that TSMC's Arizona fabs are smaller and less advanced than their Taiwanese counterparts, suggesting the investment figure may include long-term operational costs rather than solely construction. Others discuss the geopolitical motivations behind the move, viewing it as a US strategy to secure its chip supply chain amidst rising tensions with China. Some highlight the challenges TSMC faces in the US, including higher labor and operating expenses, and potential difficulties attracting and retaining skilled talent. Finally, a few commenters raise concerns about the environmental impact of these large-scale fabs and the potential strain on local resources.
The Hacker News post titled "TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S." discussing the linked Wall Street Journal article generated a significant number of comments exploring various angles of the potential investment.
Several commenters discussed the geopolitical implications, with some suggesting this move is driven by U.S. efforts to secure its semiconductor supply chain and reduce reliance on Asian manufacturers, particularly in light of increasing tensions with China. Others expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of such a massive investment, citing the significantly higher operating costs in the U.S. compared to Taiwan, including labor, land, and utilities. The discussion also touched on potential subsidies and government incentives that might be involved in making the investment attractive to TSMC.
A recurring theme in the comments was the concern about the potential "brain drain" from Taiwan, with speculation about whether TSMC would be able to attract and retain the necessary talent in the U.S. Commenters debated the quality of U.S. engineering talent and the cultural differences that might impact TSMC's operations. Some argued that the U.S. education system needs to be strengthened to support such advanced manufacturing endeavors.
Some commenters questioned the WSJ's reporting, pointing out the lack of specific details and the use of phrases like "expected to announce." They highlighted previous instances where similar announcements had not materialized or had been scaled back. Others expressed concern about the potential for political influence on TSMC's decision-making and the possibility of this investment being used as a political tool.
There was also a discussion about the potential impact on the global semiconductor market, with some suggesting that this investment could lead to increased competition and innovation, while others worried about the fragmentation of the supply chain and the potential for higher prices. Some commenters raised concerns about the environmental impact of such a large-scale manufacturing facility.
Finally, a few commenters offered personal anecdotes and experiences related to the semiconductor industry, providing insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with such large-scale investments. These comments added a human dimension to the discussion, highlighting the real-world implications of these geopolitical and economic forces.